Firstly I would like to say that my original topic was that environments would be better protected from destruction then they are now. I never said that they would be completely safe from destruction, only safer than they are now.

All through private laws and private systems people have the right to compensation when their property is damaged. for example if a factory down the road from me is pumping out harmful smoke that is drifting into my garden and killing my plants, i will have the right to compensation from that factory. They are therefore punished by having to pay me money for polluting my land. In this situation the free market has punished the factory for producing smoke that damages my property.

In the world today pollution has been made very easy to happen. The first and perhaps greatest instance of this is the use and approval of international waters in todays world. These international waters are parts of oceans that are either not under the control of any single nation, or are controlled conjointly by multiple nations, this raises the issue of jurisdiction. Not one single nation has authority or power to prevent pollution or clean it up in any of those oceans. If the ocean was to be divided up and be owned by many different people, pollution whilst, would be allowed to be dumped on one persons lot of ocean, could be sued if the pollution they dumped drifted onto someone elses lot of ocean. The oceans especially if were owned privatly as would happen in a freemarket anarchy would be safer from pollution.

according to you,"If the ocean was to be divided up and be owned by many different people, pollution whilst, would be allowed to be dumped on one persons lot of ocean, could be sued if the pollution they dumped drifted onto someone elses lot of ocean."

for example, if, say rubbish, dumped in my lot of ocean drifted in your lot of ocean, then you can sue me for damages. but my friend, this suit is only possible because of your legal system of your country and not because of freemarket system. free market system has nothing to do with legal system. free market can only pollute environment and therefore is not safe for environment.

Are you inferring that legal systems can only originate from governments?, are you in fact not aware of merchant law, or private courts? Both these things are only to do with private systems. Merchant law was made in the middle ages by merchants who were interested in creating a universal law that international merchants had to abide by. You also falsely claim that the freemarket only destroys. The freemarket unlike government is not interested in violence or destruction for the simple reason that neither violence nor destruction is profitable, you will find that private companies much rather prefer to solve disputes between them in the courts, rather than through violence. If you are instead claiming that the private companies only destroy, then you would also be wrong, currently private companies that aim to protect the environment do a far better job than government. A prime example of this is the current situation in Brazil, currently the Brazilian government leases huge areas of forest to logging companies, who then cut it all down and move on. The major protectors of the rain forest are charities and private companies like the rain forest alliance. The rain forest alliance has currently bought 100 million acres of rain forest with donations that it receives from corporate donors. The rainforest alliance has signed contracts to ensure that this land will be protected as long as the company exists.

I must also add that the way you portray the freemarket as something that can only pollute indicated that you do not properly understand the freemarket. The basic principle of the freemarket is that if the masses want a product or a service they will get it no matter who tries and stops them. A great example of this principle is the drug wars in the USA, no matter how much money the government invests into trying and stopping the drug problem, people continue to find and use drugs. Even though the US government is investing billions of dollars into stopping the drugs, they cant even keep the drugs out of their own prisons.

You say that the freemarket can only pollute the environment, yet i would say that government is the most major polluter of the environment. The largest oil spill in history, the gulf oil spill, was purposely made by a government in a war. Currently major governments protect the companies that are based in their nations and allow them to pollute without fear of having to pay compensation to people in low lying areas. The people who live in regions like Bangladesh and are at risk of having their towns flooded can take no legal action against any of the major Co2 producers.

Law and order existed before government, law and order will exist after government. Government monopolizes the enforcement of law, and of course monopolies always provide a bad product.

The basic principle of the freemarket is that if the masses want a product or a service they will get it no matter who tries and stops them. if this is what free market is, then it would have both good side and bad side. it can both enrich and pollute environment in the process of serving the needs for the masses.

therefore it cannot be resolved that free market would benefit the environ or harm it because evidence exists for both side.for example: the Brazilian government leases huge areas of forest to logging companies, who then cut it all down and move on (destruction of environment).

The major protectors of the rain forest are charities and private companies like the rain forest alliance. The rain forest alliance has currently bought 100 million acres of rain forest with donations that it receives from corporate donors. The rainforest alliance has signed contracts to ensure that this land will be protected as long as the company exists(benefit to environment).

now both these companies are product of free market. they are following the principle of free market.

therefore it would be right to say that wheather free market benefit the environment or not depends on the kind of need of the mass it is fulfilling.need of the mass will direct if free market will enrich the environment or destroy it.for example: in the above example if mass need the wooden product, more companies will cut forests but if the mass needs tree, then company like the rain forest alliance will cultivate trees to protect forest.

so decided that it is the need of the mass which will direct the free market behaviour towards environment.

Reasons for voting decision: Cons round 1 was completely irrelevant and his round 2 only addressed half of Pros case. Con made a good argument in round 3 but the fact that he waited till round 3 to make it gave Pro no chance to respond so it is disregarded.

Reasons for voting decision: Con's refutation rested on a legal system not being able to be created in free-market anarchy, however Pro not only showed the historical example of international merchant courts but showed the profitability of peaceful conflict resolvement. Pro's point about corporations(such as the Rain Forest Alliance) protecting rainforests currently also served to strengthen his case.